INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-4(4), NAGPUR vs. ARUNA DINESH JAISWAL, NAGPUR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
ITA no.221/Nag./2023 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Income Tax Officer ……………. Appellant Ward–4(4), Nagpur v/s Aruna Dinesh Jaiswal C/o D.B. Jaiswal, Gandhi Gate ……………. Respondent B/h Maharashtra Pustakalaya Mahal, Nagpur 440 002 PAN – ADIPJ6999E Assessee by : Shri Manoj G. Moryani Revenue by : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Date of Hearing – 18/06/2024 Date of Order – 20/06/2024
O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M.
The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the impugned order dated 17/05/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.
The Revenue has raised following grounds:–
“1. On the facts and Circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,20,42,900/- eventhough the assessee failed to explain the source of cash deposited in the bank account. 2. On the facts and Circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,20,42,900/- eventhough the assessee failed to establish that the cash deposits of Rs. 1,20,42,900/- in the bank account pertains to the Firm 'Jaiswal Deshi Daru Dukan' in which the assessee is a partner.
Aruna Dinesh Jaiswal ITA no.221/Nag./2023
On the facts and Circumstances of the case whether the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC was correct in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,20,42,900/- eventhough the assessee failed to submit any documentary evidences such as ITR, Computation of Income, books of accounts, 26AS statement of firm 'Jaiswal Deshi Daru Dukan' during the assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings showing the cash deposited in the bank account is actually belongs to Firm and not of the assessee. 4. Any other grounds which may be raised at the time of hearing with the permission of Hon'ble ITAT.”
The sole issue involved in this appeal in respect of the addition of ` 1,20,42,900, made by the Assessing Officer under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") relating to Current Account no.34753261952.
In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer discussed the issue as under:–
“6.4 During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dated 31/03/2022, has stated that:– “2. During the assessment proceedings following statutory notices had been issued to the assessee and served in account of e–filing portal and registered email id:
Notice u/s of Sr. Date of issue Due date of the Income Remarks no. of notice compliance Tax Act, 1961 30 days from ITRA filed on 1. 148 22/03/2021 receipt of the 07/08/2021 notice Filed ITR and submitted form 2. 142(1) 30/06/2021 15/07/2021 26AS computation of income 3. 142(1) 17/01/2022 01/02/2022 No compliance Replied denying cash deposits made in a/c 4. 142(1) 02/02/2022 08/02/2022 jointly held with his wife 5. 143(2) 14/03/2022 26/03/2022 No Compliance Calling for details of 6. 142(1) 17/03/2022 19/03/2022 cash deposits in a/c no.34753261952 Page | 2
Aruna Dinesh Jaiswal ITA no.221/Nag./2023
The assessee has filed return of income only on date 07/08/2021 and e- verified the same on 08.03.2022. Subsequently, as required by law, Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 14.03.2022. On perusal of the return of income the assessee has offered Rs.98,500/- as income from other sources. Vide reply uploaded on 01.09.2021, the assessee has submitted Form 26AS, income computation statement, copy of ack. of ROI filed. 3.1. Vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 17.01.2022, the assessee was asked to furnish a. A copy of bank account statement for the period from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018 of the current account No.34753261952 held in State bank of India, Mahal Branch, Nagpur, and also furnish a copy of bank account statement of anyother bank accounts held in your name for the period 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2018. b. Explain the source of cash deposits of Rs.1,20,42,900/- made in the account SBI, Mahal Branch, Nagpur with supportive documentary evidences. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed reply on 08/03/2022, the assessee mentioned that bank account No. 34753261952 belongs to partnership firm, 'Jaiswal Deshi Daru Dukan' in which she is one of the partners, but that the bank account is not held in her name. With respect to second bank account no. 10483104017, she remarked that that account is jointly held along with her husband, Dinesh Jaiswal and submitted bank account statement for the same for the relevant assessment year. A notice u/s. 133(6) was issued to SBI Bank dated 01.03.2022 asking for details of cash deposits, bank account statement from 01.04.2015 to 31.03.3018. However, no response has been received from the bank so far. On perusal of the above submissions made, comparing with the information in ITBA 360 it is seen that the cash deposits were made in the account no. 34753261952 which is seems to be held in the assessee's name of the assessee, but the assessee submitted that the above account held with bank being to partnership firm 'Jaiswal Deshi Daru Dukan' in which she is one of the partners. Vide this office notice dated 17.03.2022, the assessee was asked to furnish a copy of bank account statement of account No.34753261952 held in the name of Firm Jaiswal Deshi Daru Dukhan for F.Y.2016-17. The assessee had not filed her reply till 24.03.2022. Hence in the absence of any valid proof/ documentary evidences the claim of assessee is not acceptable. Hence the total cash deposits found in the bank amounting to Rs. 1,20,42,900/- is treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. In view of the above proposed addition, notice was issued to the assessee on 24.03.2022 to show cause as to why the assessment should not be completed by treating the cash deposits of Rs. 1,20,42,900/- as unexplained money u/s 69 A and added to total income. The assessee had furnished the reply on 27.03.2022 and submitted the bank account statement of Firm 'Jaiswal Deshi Daru Dukan' bearing current account No.34753261952. However the assessee had not submitted the ITR, financial of the firm, details with Page | 3
Aruna Dinesh Jaiswal ITA no.221/Nag./2023
regard to cash deposits in whose name this amount was offered for taxation etc. was not substantiated with documentary evidence. Hence the cash deposits found in the said account remains unexplained and treated as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and added to total income.”
On appeal, the learned CIT(A) considered the entire issue and deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The observations of the learned CIT(A) are as follows:–
“6.7 I have perused the matter and the relevant factors to be considered in this case including the surrounding circumstances, objective facts, evidences adduced and material available on record. 6.8 As part of submission, the appellant has filed the computation statement, return of income and 26AS in case of Shri Rajesh Jaiswal as evidence of the sales amount being reflected in his turnover and income. 6.9 The assessee has already submitted the copy of bank statement of assessee on 08/02/2022 during the course of assessment. The bank account of the assessee clearly shows that there is no cash deposits of Rs. 1,20,42,900/- as mentioned in the show cause notice and as per the information received by the department. The assessee has also stated that she has no other bank account in her name and requested that same may kindly be accepted. The assessee is not holding any current account at State bank of India vide account no. 34753261952. The said bank account belongs to Partnership firm "Jaiswal Deshi Daru Dulcan". To support the contention of assessee, the assessee has submitted the copy of bank account vide account number 34753261952. 6.10 The assessee also stated that the case of Rajesh Jaiswal for the AY 2017- 2018 was also opened on same issue being cash deposited in bank account and assessment were completed making addition u/s 69A and estimating profit @8% of the total turnover. The assessee enclosed a copy of assessment order in the case of Shri Rajesh Jaiswal for the AY 2017-2018 which is on record. The appeal against the said order has been filed by Shri Rajesh Jaiswal and said appeal is also pending before the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The assessee submitted that again making addition for the same issue results into double addition. 6.11 In view of the above, assessee has already explained the entire Case of the assessee and submitted all the details regarding the cash deposits. The assessee submitted that entire transactions were duly explained and genuine transaction. The same were duly shown in the computation of income of the Partner Shri Rajesh Jaiswal and taxes also duly paid and reflected in Form 26AS of Shri Rajesh Jaiswal. In the case of assessee during the previous year relevant to AY 2017-18, assessee is not the owner of the money. The said cash deposited in the SBI bank account belongs to 'Jaiswal Desi Daru Dukan' which is a partnership firm. The entire transaction is duly recorded in the form Page | 4
Aruna Dinesh Jaiswal ITA no.221/Nag./2023
26AS of Shri Rajesh Jaiswal AY 2017-18 and duly shown in the computation of income of Shri Rajesh Jaiswal who is the partner of partnership firm and taxes are also duly paid on the same. The additions in the case of Shri Rajesh Jaiswal is in appeal separately and is not an issue in this appeal. 6.12 In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition of ` 1,20,42,900, made by the A.O. as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is hereby deleted and grounds of appeals raised in this regard is allowed.”
On appeal before us, the learned Departmental Representative (“the learned D.R.”) strongly supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Current Account no. 34753261952, relates to Partnership Firm and not relating to the assessee, therefore, by considering the same, the learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He strongly supported the order passed by the learned CIT(A).
We have heard the rival arguments, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The only issue involved in this appeal is with regard to the addition made by the Assessing Officer of ` 1,20,42,900, under section 69A of the Act, relating to Current Account no. 34753261952. The learned CIT(A) has discussed the issue at Para–6.9 and has given a factual findings by verifying the Bank Account that the above Current Account number does not belong to the assessee and the said bank account belong to the Partnership Firm and, therefore, deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned CIT(A). The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed.
Aruna Dinesh Jaiswal ITA no.221/Nag./2023
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20/06/2024
Sd/- Sd/- K.M. ROY V. DURGA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
NAGPUR, DATED: 20/06/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur
